Lord God the man’s an idiot

Why won’t the government disclose the cost of climate change

Well, because they don’t want to admit that the costs of stopping it will be higher than the benefits of doing so?

I wonder why?

What are they worried about?

In the meantime, I will go with £1 trillion….nothing suggests it is less to me, based on all the estimates I have seen.

That’s for the UK alone of course.

According to the Review, without action, the overall costs of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, now and forever. Including a wider range of risks and impacts could increase this to 20% of GDP or more, also indefinitely. Stern believes that 5–6 degrees of temperature increase is “a real possibility.”[4]

The Review proposes that one percent of global GDP per annum is required to be invested to avoid the worst effects of climate change. In June 2008, Stern increased the estimate for the annual cost of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550 ppm CO2e to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.

UK GDP is around £2 trillion at present. So Ritchie thinks that we should spend 50% of GDP to avoid a future 5% loss of GDP. Which, starting a few decades out and then discounting to the present is more or less than 50% of GDP?

This being Stern’s argument about why we don’t use planning, instead we use market forces as pushed by a carbon tax. For the latter is a more efficient method therefore we’ll solve more climate change that way.

21 thoughts on “Lord God the man’s an idiot”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    Why won’t the government disclose the cost of climate change

    Because if they do, well if they tell the population the true impact of the costs of the measure he and the rest of the catastrophists want to implement, the peasants would be out with pitchforks in a shot and there’d be more than a few political heads on spikes.

  2. “Meanwhile, conservatives are said to have rejected science if they won’t believe that taxes control the weather.” – moonbattery.com

  3. I assume Ritchie means:
    – “Why won’t the government disclose the cost of Preventing climate change”

    Reason being it’s impossible, even if we spend £100 Trillion trying to

  4. Cost of ‘stopping’ climate change? (as defined by the Greens)
    Around 6.5 billion murders, worldwide. 65 million murders in the UK.
    That gets the population down to less than 1% of current, probably a sustainable level with 7th century farming and technology. Nicely zero carbon.

    But not necessarily, all the good high quality ores are gone, so it’s probably not possible to sustain even an iron industry with saxon technology.
    Bronze age maybe, but the tin’s mined out too.

    I guess its follow Ford Prefect’s direction: “Keep banging the rocks together guys!”

  5. “Why won’t the government disclose the cost of climate change”
    Because no-one knows what it is.
    Only a lefty (or a small uninformed child) wants the impossible.
    Informed children are generally a lot more sensible than Murphy.

  6. ‘Why won’t the government disclose the cost of climate change’

    Climate change is undefined. So you can say it will cost whatever you want to, and no one can challenge you. It’s SCIENCE!

  7. Now Murphy has committed to a number, expect it to be treated by him and his camp followers as an immutable fact in future

  8. Am I the only one can’t see the difference between the Murphybolocks & Tim’s carbon tax. Where do you get the externality cost it’s based on? Quoting Stern is like quoting Mystic Meg

  9. You keep, keep, missing my point. Which is, even if we stay within the “accepted climate science” that the agitators say we must we still end up where getting Grant Shapps or whoever to plan things is still the wrong solution.

    You keep missing the “Even if”.

  10. We all get your point. But your solution still involves accepting as hypothetically possible what is yet to be shown. Due diligence requires that we establishment whether there is a real problem before we move on to seeking solutions. Unless the real problem is post-industrial-revolution civilization, in which case the enemy solutions are on the right track. Yours won’t solve the problem of climate change, because CO2 is not a control knob, The climate always has and always will do whatever it likes.

  11. No, I don’t miss the point.
    If you don’t know a figure then whatever figure gets chosen is a political choice made by politicians. The idea that the introduction of a carbon tax could be “revenue neutral” fails because there isn’t a set figure on how much tax can be extracted from an economy. Again, it’s all down to politicians. Any version of a carbon tax could be described as “revenue neutral” to suit what taxation they wish to impose. So the net result is indiscernible from political planning. But with the dangerous fig leaf politicians can hide behind that some proportion of taxation is virtuous “coz climate change”.

  12. Somewhere in this you need a discount rate for political capital. There is actually nothing in all this to incentivise politicians to address climate change. The long term costs & consequences are beyond the political horizon. None of the current politicians are going to be around mid century. What they do now is for their political benefit in their near future.
    In some ways, St Greta & XR are correct. The problem, if it exists, is insoluble using current structures. But the sort of political structures would solve it are worse than the problem. So it’s probably better to do nothing.

  13. This is why some of the greener politicians can politic on platforms would take us back to the C7th. They are not going to be around to see the result. They don’t care if the lights go out in 2037. They’re interested in being elected, now.

  14. I resent the perversion of governments’ taxing authority to manipulate people’s behavior. It is evil.

    If people’s behavior is destructive, BAN IT! REGULATE IT! Don’t fvck over the tax system. It undermines the legitimacy of the state.

  15. @bis & rhoda

    +10

    It’s Tim W who keeps missing the point of his acceptance

    Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile

    Tim W behaves exactly like Tory MPs pandering to equality, colour, green, gay, trans etc

    They’ll never say ‘thank you’, it’s always ‘not enough’

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *